Asking clarification regarding moderation

[eyeheartawk]

I don't think saying that Jim Ward's post Gamma World 1E content has been...lacking is a particularly hot take. Nor is taking a dim view of removing demons and devils from the game (only to be added back in later under word-salad names) an especially uncommon one.

Nobody was personally attacked (a forum member or Jim Ward himself). His work was brought into question, as were his managerial decisions, but not his character.

It does seem that being "negative" makes it far more likely to be actionable rather than an equably vociferous defense of a positive interpretation of a given topic of discussion. It's just something I've noticed.

Speaking broadly of course, I don't intend to go bring up specific instances, but that's just how it reads to me. But yeah, being negative does seem to make it more likely that you get visited upon for tone or snark or whatever.

 

[Maggan]

I don't think saying that Jim Ward's post Gamma World 1E content has been...lacking is a particularly hot take.

You're right. I've been on that bandwagon for years. And I've never been moderated for it.

Tone matters. And describing his work as "lacking" is not the tone that was moderated. At least that how it reads to me. And to other participants in that thread, as expressed in their replies.

EDIT: I will self-moderate and admonish myself for off topic posts. So no more OT from me! ... in this thread ...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think saying that Jim Ward's post Gamma World 1E content has been...lacking is a particularly hot take.

I think that his contributions up to '96, at least, are some of the most important in the history of this hobby. Seriously, there's a reason he's in the Hall of Fame. It's like saying, "Yeah, Gygax didn't do anything after 1985." Pretty accurate ... so what?

I think the tragedy is that times change. And that people ... well, very few people can be vital to any creative endeavor over the entirety of their life.

The tragedy of living a long life is that for most people, they live long enough that people forget why they used to matter.

 

[Mannahnin]

Lots of good comments in here.

I think there's a little bit of a double standard in regard to how pagan religions can be discussed vs. how Christianity can be, but that it's an unavoidable one given their relative cultural status and influence.

Those of us who are followers of neopagan or reconstructionist pagan religions tend to be perfectly comfortable with and accustomed to seeing our religions (or more usually, those of our pagan forebears, which have no connection of contiguous tradition to modern practice) spoken of lightly, and are usually not sensitive to such comments.

Since, as has been noted, the objective of moderation is to keep the peace, rather than to aspire to some perfect principle of fairness, this means that it's rarely going to be needed in regards to discussions of paganism. And I think that's ok.

That being said, from everything I've seen of moderation here, if someone were being directly or deliberately hurtful in regard to my religion, I have confidence that the moderation would step in appropriately. Either if they happened to see it, or if I were to report it.

I would agree that it's further complicated because, in this case, people are more familiar with this specific issue. In the past, we've had a specific poster who adheres to less mainstream beliefs (Neo-Norse? I'm not sure how s/he prefers to describe it) that felt marginalized in conversations.

I don't know what that particular poster uses, but Heathenry or Asatru (Heathen or Asatruar for the adherent) are the most common terms for the Norse-derived faiths, and for "Norse Pantheon" the terms you were probably looking for in your first post are Aesir and Vanir.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

how much of the modding is complaint-driven and how much is proactive?

It’s purely situational.

Sometimes, I log in and there’s 10 reports. I look for the low-hanging fruit first- the easy calls- and knock those out. Some take longer. Some I avoid until I can really get up to speed on what’s going on because it’s a complex issue or one I’m not familiar with.

OTOH, if it happens right in front of me while I’m reading the thread? I check to see if its already been modded/reported, and if not, I take care of it.

Then there’s topics- and yes, some posters- that have a tendency to generate lots of posts. In those cases, there’s going to be heightened scrutiny,

And yes- because we’re not perfect, the moderators do check each other’s gaffes. I can recall at least 3 times when I legitimately posted something outside of the rules, and Umbran & Morrus pointed it out.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

Mild commentary? I'd hate to see your harsh commentary.

Serious? I didn't swear, or disparage his character or launch any personal attacks. I was, however, mildly sarcastic. Tongue-in-cheek even. I think that it's more of a case of me being sarcastic at the WRONG person. And that, quite frankly, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But oh well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Serious? I didn't swear, or disparage his character or launch any personal attacks. I was, however, mildly sarcastic. Tongue-in-cheek even. I think that it's more of a case of me being sarcastic at the WRONG person. And that, quite frankly, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But oh well.

If that was your response, perhaps you should have PMed a mod.

 

[AnotherGuy]

As far as I'm concerned, the solution would have been very simple: the thread about the biblical setting (explicitly biblical,too!) should not have been created in the first place, or should have been locked immediately, because it falls under the above-mentioned ban. Problem solved.

It does not need to be.

Topics that could have been discussed - types of races or classes, specific tool proficiencies, magic or miracles, real world political turmoil of the time, weapons and armour, faith as an ability, monsters - demons/devils/fiends...etc
It is a new setting after all.

The need to reduce another's belief to a myth was unnecessary and certainly not constructive to the topic of a new setting.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

If that was your response, perhaps you should have PMed a mod.

The hypocrisy wasn't obvious until the second thread manifested itself and by then it was too much trouble. And, let's face it, never in the history of message boards has PMing a mod ever proved fruitful.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The hypocrisy wasn't obvious until the second thread manifested itself and by then it was too much trouble. And, let's face it, never in the history of message boards has PMing a mod ever proved fruitful.

Sorry you feel that way.

I can tell you that at least one of the times Morrus dinged my modding, it was because of a report (not a PM), and I did go back and edit the reported post. I’d like to think that if the communication had been via PM, the results would have been the same.